Should the U.S. Get Rid of FEMA, as Ron Paul Suggests?

weasel,

I am sorry to hear about the hard times that your friend endured during the CA Northridge Earthquake. I am glad they received the help they needed.

However, I must respectfully agree with the 80% who voted to disband FEMA.

While most would absolutely accept aid from a third party in the event of a disaster, I do not believe that FEMA is the only option.

The fact is that the organization has been a colossal failure since its inception. Since being placed under the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, FEMA has been nothing but a poorly organized blunder in handling "emergency management."

They had been spending $400 million a month prior to Hurricane Irene. Now that the storm is over, they now plan to spend another $800 million to help the situation.

They have been unbelievably poor in their execution. They seem ill-prepared to deal with a given situation and when they finally do come into help, it is generally to late (i.e. Katrina).

Dr. Paul is not suggesting we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

He suggests, and I agree with him, that the National Guard and a coordinated State response is the best answer. Someone from Washington DC should not be an expert on tornado management in the Midwest, for example. The people who live in that area are in the best position to help out after the disaster. Alot of that has to do with knowledge of the area, but it has more to do with a vested interest in the community.

Look at the tornadoes in St. Louis earlier this year. The first people on the scene and the last to leave were "average" citizens from the area and nearby communities/counties. They helped clear debri, feed the victims, and provide them a place to stay. Millions of dollars were raised through fundraising to help get these people back on their feet. They had one goal, and that was to help.

Long after any government agency left, these people were still working. Looking to their neighbors for help/support, instead of waiting on Uncle Sam.

rubberducky of OK 5:09PM August 30, 2011

Abolishing FEMA doesn't mean that there will be no help from the government or the states in case of emergency. It just means ending a large bureaucracy in deep debt, which is more popular around the world for the desastrous Katrina aftermath and all this half- secret detention centers built under the Bush administration than for actually managing a crisis the way it should be done. Parts of this monster are necessary for sure, but you don't need it as a whole to do that and there should be more involvement of the states. Washington should be out of Galveston's business. To all those people asking for FEMA to continue their work: was it really so bad before it existed in the seventies or earlier when earthquakes or hurricans hit the US? Was it really established just for the good? I don't think so.

Philipp 4:29PM August 30, 2011

Holy cow 80% of you voted to disband FEMA. My question is this: Have any of you ever experienced a FEMA level mishap and did you turn down aid that was available through FEMA?

I was in CA for the Northridge Earthquake and while I was unscathed my friend, who lived in an apartment building had one of his interior walls collapse (partially) -- so the building was yellow tagged and they had to move into a hotel for a while - FEMA paid for that. Without that i guess they would have lived in their car instead.

Somehow I really truly doubt that any of you would turn down FEMA aid if your house were destroyed in a natural disaster. But, I suppose I could be wrong. Anyone care to share stories of turning away from aid due to morality issues?

weasel of CA 3:51PM August 30, 2011

I'll bet most of the people calling for elimination of all government assistance for everything have never faced a disaster. Have you all divined the perfect, safe place to reside - where there have never been any floods, droughts, fires, earthquakes, snowstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, or hailstorms? If so, let us know where we should move.

Yours must also be a place where there is no need for roads, police, sanitation, air travel, education or national defense.

Let's remember that the United States of America became the greatest nation through the hard work of an extremely diverse, large population that has so far figured out ways to get along and be productive. That entails a government which protects freedom by staying out of private enterprise and fostering entrepreneurial competition. But that also includes sharing the cost of basic services, infrastructure and national integrity. Would you rather we all regressed to being hunter-gatherers living in cabins in the woods?

It is entirely appropriate to debate the size and function of government. But don't rage about the dissolution of all government services unless you can say you do not personally benefit from any them. We won't hear from anyone like that, because they don't have the evil, government-incubated internet in their cabins. They can't even go to a government-sponsored library to look up any information or subscribe to a newsletter delivered by the Post Office.

Most of the vehement blather is from "I'm all right, Jack, and don't give a crap about anyone else," people who change their tunes the moment something "unfair" happens to them. Guess who's the first to ask, "Where's my government to help me?"

Asked where to cut spending, most people are in favor of cutting any government program which does not directly benefit them, while insisting on maintaining any the does help them. Cut expenses, balance the budget, and live within our means? - Absolutely! Get rid of all government? Hogwash.

John Matera of MA 3:21PM August 30, 2011